So while we still haven't achieved the goal of providing empirical data, I think that sums up the reality of the situation.Originally Posted by SouthNarc
So while we still haven't achieved the goal of providing empirical data, I think that sums up the reality of the situation.
I agree. That's a definite "win."
However, even if I perform magnificently, put everything COM on Waingro JR, turn his descending aorta into a fine pink mist and yet I somehow manage to catch an incoming round in the process (despite multiple Mannix-like rolls) but my wife remains unharmed, then I'll chalk it up as a "win."
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Agreed.
Yes, because the majority of US gunowners have no formal training.
But I think the failures don't often turn up on the radar or get the publicity of the successes.
Whenever there is any profile success that comes from even displaying the gun it gets reposted from facebook page to facebook page, from blog to blog, and may windup in the Armed Citizen section of the NRA magazine American Rifleman.
You also have people posting incidents on internet forums (including some stupid ones) where they successfully scared someone off by displaying a gun.
However, people are not so quick to point out their personal failures; nor do gun bloggers and facebook people repost them.
Face it, if Zimmerman got his head pounded in and his gun taken away, none of us would have ever heard about it or would know his name.
He might have showed up afterwards at the hospital as a victim of a beating, in which case it would not have made the news. He also might have made the local news as a Hispanic male found beaten to death--in which case it would have only been a local news item without any info about him having his gun taken away by the perpetrator.
Also, look at many of the gunowners you see at shooting ranges who display poor gun handling skills, poor safety skills and poor accuracy. How well do you think that they would fare if they had to defend themselves? These are the average untrained owners.
Just going off of personal observation on the street and working such calls, I can't think of a single case where a good guy ended up dead during a self defense case where a gun was used or threatened to be used in defense.
I know of some near run fights, such as the little old man who had to deploy his model 36 flat latch that he bought brand new and loaded but never fired until 50ish years later he had a home invasion to deal with. That guy got the crap beat out of him before the bad guy bled out.
Only one of the defensive shooting cases I have seen involved a good guy with any training what so ever, and that guy wouldn't have been "trained" under the paradigm of guys like Todd or Craig, although he made a one shot hit on an armed robbers face when the moment came (although I strongly suspect he was going for "center mass" at the time).
Another notable one for me was a chick stuck in the hood but trying to make a better life (seriously, not the "he was just starting to get his life together" BS) who bought a Rossi .38 from the pawn shop, they let her buy 12 rounds of RNL as that's all she could afford after buying the gun. She expended 6 rounds into the side of a metal trash can to confirm function and that she could hit a trash can, then called it good until the day she needed the gun.
Anecdotes, I know, but if a lot of people see a lot of one thing happen, and never or almost never see the other thing happen, then I think the one thing is far more likely, and not just as likely, as the other thing
Quite well, actually.
It has been my experience that attackers do not ask to see one's gun school diplomas when one points a gun at them.
Again though, in what context?
Can that unsafe gun range dweeb brandish like a champ? Sure.
If the person he's pointing the gun towards decides to shoot first (or shoot back), then what?
I think then you really have to compare the average training of the attacker. How many street thugs have attended rangemaster?
Most of the videos I've seen have shown the victim doing a bunch of point shooting and hollywood weaver, and the attackers point firing backwards while running away as fast as they can.
Real question is *why* anyone would stay and have a gunfight with a civilian. The whole point was to get your easy profit/cheap thrills, not to take territory or avoid arrest.
It seems like a debate over semantics or perhaps some paradoxical question on the training level of attackers, but this was my initial reaction to the OP:
If you assume that both parties in a DGU are "untrained", then by definition half of the people will be successful.
*delete double post*
Reply With Quote